what percentage of UFO's are MAN MADE

i know that ufo's are a big topic here and i have no doubt at all that they exist, i just wonder the true inhabitors of the various unidentified
craft

yes there are many millions or stars in the universe and yes it may be possible for some to travel i even suspect that these et's if they do exist
may be multi dimensional or simpy reside in other dimension's (vibrational frequency's) but i need concret evidence to really beleive, but i
digress

what percent of UFO reporting are simply black ops, or misdirection ,misinformation basically what percent do you think is manmade?

Even if aliens are real, it's likely that the vast majority of UFOs are manmade, or else stars/meteors/asteroids/planets or other celestial bodies.
I'd say that at a minimum, 99% of UFOs are not aliens, but either manmade or normal astronomical/atmospheric phenomena.

Great question, I wonder about it too. Though I have found the study of older pictures and filmed sightings to help eliminate a good chunk of both
hoaxes and possible blk-ops flying gizmos.

When they are travelling along at thousands of miles/pr/hr and zig-zagging below the clouds I have more interest learning more about the film's
photographer as well as the where and when.. was there any sound, other witnesses and stuff, etc..

These days there so many unidentified Flying Hoaxes (UFH) appearing on video clips here and there, it's hard to even consider percentages of what's
Blk-Ops v. what may be a true UFO. But there are clues.

I would think that before an aerial sighting could be declared possibly 'extraterrestrial' in nature, it would have to satisfy several criterion.

1. There should not be a terrestrial craft of similar shape, size, construction or characteristics in existence (at the time of the sighting).
2. It should exhibit flight characteristics that are known to be not possible by terrestrial craft, manned or unmanned. These characteristics should
be distinguishable from optical effects, such as camera movement. (iow, you move a camera focused on a light and the light tracings seem to fly around
in impossible loops), or optical illusion.
3. It should be clearly visible as a 'craft' and not an optical illusion.
4. It should be sighted within 500 feet of the observer or closer (the classic Hynek CE-I event)

5. There should be at least two reliable witnesses, interviewed separately that give a consistent account. Ideally there should be photographic or
filmed evidence. The witnesses should have more than an ordinary interest in ET, UFOs, or paranormal subjects; ideally they should be skeptics.

Ideally the event would be a classic CE-II, in which there are ground traces, or the craft seen on the ground, photographed and traces recorded
scientifically.

Anything that is further away than 500 feet, or consisting solely of lights in the sky or distant daylight discs would be concluded as at best, simply
'unknown'.

In addition the sighting of such craft that may be deemed as 'non-terrestrial' would not necessarily be associated with aliens until proven
otherwise - ideally by visualization of occupants.

Bear in mind that with current technology it would be possible, with sufficient funding to fake all of this, even to a live observer. So even though
these characteristics might be seen, it would still not be classified as 'proof positive'.

(obviously there are other things to look out for, but this is a start)

i know this is a rather radical question but say the ancients had carefully guarded technology for flying themselves and that is just very secretive
and that ancient paintings were merely humans. i know i know but i have seen more than one older picture (1000) or so years ago that showed human
looking people in a craft flying thru the sky.

history is hijacked it is just at different times in history the elite's release certain technologies to the public, even though they have had them
for along time. not saying this is a fact, just a possibility

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.